The Real Mitt Romney

[BigV]

Conservatism means never having to apologize.

While he apologized for how some interpreted his comments, Mourdock was steadfast in his position.

"I believe God controls the universe. I don't think biology works simply in an uncontrolled fashion," Mourdock said. "For speaking from my heart … I cannot apologize. I would be less than faithful to my faith."

[BigV]

He is a Conservative. He cannot apologize.

[BigV]

Who is the real Mitt Romney?

We've heard lots of opinions, lots of generalizations, a few details, plenty of contradictions. There are many voices clamoring for our attention, claiming, usually by naked assertion that he's the best. I am trying to understand their reasoning, and one major tool I use to gain understanding is to consider who's doing the talking. And that has been difficult to discern when it comes to the Romney campaign.

It's not just Romney out there saying "Vote for me!", but lots of other people, but they're largely invisible, like Clint Eastwood's foil. Look at all the money being spent for each campaign. More importantly, look at who is spending it. The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.

If Romney's your guy, enough that you'd spend millions of dollars to help him get elected, why wouldn't you want your name known in that effort? To me, the clearest reason is that you don't want people to associate your name with Romney's. Why not? Why not? Perhaps you're shy. Or maybe you think that voters who look at Romney and wonder who else is supporting him will be turned off by his association with you. For example, I don't think the Koch brothers, just to use an example, have the same priorities as I do for the President. And if they're supporting Romney, then I think Romney's less appealing.

Now let's look at who's spending what.

Ad Spending By Outside Groups, April 10-Oct. 10

Party Affiliation         Amount Spent       Donor Status        Percent
Democratic                $20,032,460        Disclosed           86.6%
Democratic                 $3,101,280        Undisclosed         13.4%
Total Democratic          $23,133,740 		

Republican                $69,112,620        Disclosed           44.4%
Republican                $86,600,860        Undisclosed         55.6%
Total Republican         $155,713,480 		

Source: Kantar Media CMAG

Those undisclosed donors are overwhelmingly Republican, almost thirty times more! Why? What are they hiding? Who are they hiding from? It seems absolutely clear to me that Romney knows who's giving him these many millions, so, his "debt" to them is known. But I don't know to whom he will be beholden. That troubles me. I think much of this money is corporate spending, and despite the fact that I need a job, I have no illusions that "the company" exists for my benefit. What is good for them is only sometimes good for me. This is based on my own personal experience as well as a lifetime of learning from the mistakes of others. Class warfare? You betcha. And this is a stealth attack.

There's so much that is unknown about Romney, so many details missing, and so many contradictory statements out there. It is not possible to know the real Mitt Romney, who is bankrolling him, and what they will want from him as President. You want my vote? You have to give me good information. All I hear from Romney is "Trust me." That's not a fact, it's a line used by people who want something from me. Their secrecy speaks more about them than they wish it did though.

We don't know the real Mitt Romney, and that's just the way he wants it. No thanks.

[Adak]

The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.

If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.

And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who have disagreed with Obama.

Romney's donors are largely businesses. Lots of businesses do business with some gov't agency.

You get the connection clearly, of course. They would be cut off from work with the federal gov't, if Obama wins re-election, if their names were known.

Hard to believe, after reading that Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS, shortly after asking Obama an embarrassing question in public, that you can't figure this stuff out.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.

And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who disagree with Obama.

Do you live in a bunker?

---

The mind boggles at the comic, no, FARCICAL insanity of this statement.

Let's see. Romney's Obama's "public enemy number one", right? Is he being investigated to death? IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security? What about Ryan? Clint Eastwood? Sean Hannity? My cousin?

You're a joke, man.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.

And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who have disagreed with Obama.

Romney's donors are largely businesses. Lots of businesses do business with some gov't agency.

You get the connection clearly, of course. They would be cut off from work with the federal gov't, if Obama wins re-election, if their names were known.

Hard to believe, after reading that Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS, shortly after asking Obama an embarrassing question in public, that you can't figure this stuff out.

I see you edited your post to add more nonsense.

btw, is this you? jdang307? He sounds just as kooky as you do.

one at a time, ok?

Businesses are romney's donors, largely. you're implying they would be cut off from work from the federal government because they backed obama's opponent.

...

well, I thought I had the strength to refute this, but I don't.

******

joe the plumber is audited.

y'know, it's dark outside where I live. this is OBVIOUSLY the nefarious work of Mitt Romney, personally, to extinguish the sun, in an underhanded attempt to make solar energy fail. Why does he hate America?!

Same thing, right? You should look up causation and correlation and coincidence. I leave the finding the definitions and examples as an exercise for the student.

good night.

[BigV]

Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).

Like Romney (and Obama) regarding China?

Better question, no, observation. I think this is how you see the world. If I or my team/color/Liberalism has a valid point, it is a direct loss for you. This is not how the real world operates. It's a dumb way to move through the world, but I can see that view is complimentary with much of your other statements.

Viewing foreign policy in this zero-sum way is stupid. How much do you think you'd accomplish by dominating your host? Is this the kind of dumbass headspace Romney was coming from when he insulted the Olympic organizers in London? He wanted to make sure the sum was in AMERICA'S favor? You look ridiculous in that hat Adak. Please take it off, you're scaring the United Nations.

[Adak]

Viewing foreign policy in this zero-sum way is stupid. How much do you think you'd accomplish by dominating your host? Is this the kind of dumbass headspace Romney was coming from when he insulted the Olympic organizers in London? He wanted to make sure the sum was in AMERICA'S favor? You look ridiculous in that had Adak. Please take it off, you're scaring the United Nations.

You never heard of "Gunboat Diplomacy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

Foreign policy is not the peaches and creme and intellectual exercise that you seem to believe it is.

I didn't say foreign policy was brilliant - just what is IS.

Friendly nations do better, of course. US and UK -- but still, we have spies in the UK, and the UK has spies in the US. Even during WWII, both the US and the UK did not share everything they learned, with each other. (a lot, but not everything).

US and Israel -- same thing, only much worse. They've damaged us a lot with their spying, and eroded a lot of good will in the US, with it.

Yes. Romney has been investigated by several lawyers, working for Obama. Unfortunately for Obama, Romney's clean. Chicago politics (where you find something in the opponents past and bring it out), hasn't worked against Romney.

This is how Obama got elected to his Illinois seat, you may recall. His opponent was ruined.

[BigV]

This is how Obama got elected to his Illinois seat, you may recall. His opponent was ruined.

is that how he got elected to his current seat?

[Adak]

No, I believe a lot of us were glad to have a smart charismatic guy in the White House, after having 8 years of Bush.

Unfortunately, Obama couldn't stay behind his charisma, he had to show some policy, and that was his undoing.

Having Bill Ayres visit the White House? Never ever would I have believed that possible.

[piercehawkeye45]

Did you know that the South succeeded from the US because they thought the North was weak?

Did you know that Hitler invaded Poland because he thought they US was weak?

Did you know that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he thought the US was weak?

Did you know that Osama Bin Laden attacked the US because he thought the US was weak?

[Adak]

Strength and weakness are relative things. If other Presidents of major powers were touring the world acknowledging their nations past errors, over and over - then OK. But that's not the case, is it?

Now, compared to past Presidents, and Presidents of other major nations, our country appears weaker - and yes, terrorist groups and other nations, watch and analyze what the President says, and how he says it, as well.

For example, Saddam Hussein DID believe, based on the comments of the President and Sec. of State, that we would not intervene with his take over of Kuwait, militarily.

Are you arguing that if we appear weak, we're really improving the odds for peace (peace through weakness?), and the nice terrorists will leave us alone?

That's REALLY interesting logic you have there! Worked really well when the UK tried it when Chamberlain was in office, and tried it again with the Falklands, didn't it?

Care to try it again? Is there a certain number of lessons needed before you learn it's not working?

[piercehawkeye45]

You kind of fell down the rabbit hole there didn't ya?

I fail to see how our foreign policy in the past four years could be considered weak? It is is only Republicans that believe that.

[Spexxvet]

I'm offended that Rmoney keeps insisting that America is not the best damn country in the whole wide world. He's a fucking traitor, that's what he is. We are perfect, thanks to Mr. Obama.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You kind of fell down the rabbit hole there didn't ya?

I fail to see how our foreign policy in the past four years could be considered weak? It is is only Republicans that believe that.

Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?

1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).

2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.

3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.

4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.

5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.

6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.

7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.

8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.

And much much more.

There is ALWAYS movement on the foreign affairs front. Nations are always jockeying for a better position. Various groups that want a country of their own, are always plotting ways to get one, by violence. We don't hear much about it, because diplomatic efforts, and the efforts to unravel them by force, are made sub rosa, whenever possible.

I don't believe that Obama's administration has been a foreign policy disaster. I simply argue that his planned fleet reductions and foreign policy, will leave us weaker. Despite some more capable ships we have now, we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.